STL - what's going to be hot?

[Rabbit07]

These classes were derived from World Challenge. In World Challenge data collection and restrictions are used to regulate the cars. This is not a new idea nor should it be suprising to anyone.

[Rabbit07]

And STU won't be shaken out until the rules stop changing. STU is FAR from being ready to "balancing".... I have four engine options I'm considering, based on what happens with the engine rules. Until they're stable, I'm keeping my money in the bank and will continue driving a tired stock engine until I know I'm not going to waste thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours building, swapping, and tuning an engine that gets strangled at its second race.

I applaud the work that's being done, but the STU overdogs you're waiting on are quite possibly sitting on their haunches and/or sandbagging waiting for the rules to be made.

What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

[Chip42]

chris

the rules within the STU class have simply added question marks. the list of alternate cars is great, but makes no mention of swaps, if the weight indicated is as-raced or before adjusting up/down for FWD, etc...

other than that (cam, comp, etc...) the engine rules are pretty much the same, yeah. body rules took a bold step.

in all seriousness - what are the odds of a non-US market motor being allowed - in particular I am thinking of an evolution of the US market celica 2.0L sold from 86-89. the changes were pretty minimal outside of the intake manifold (longer runners, still single TB with plenum) and head (smaller ports) and some oiling stuff. motor came in 94-97 celicas and MR2 NA cars in Japan / europe/etc... it's a 3rd gen 3S-GE (NOT the "BEAMS" motor which is a pretty significant revision). main reason I want it is the head is already converted to shim-under-bucket so I can use the big cams w/out spending ~$1000 extra, head allows port+polish to tune vs. too-big ports a'la 4A-GE, and the oil pickups are easier to work with (added sub-block stiffener with oil filter adapter). and I can get them used with trans and ECU for ~$1000 at my door all day. I know making such an allowance is not within the post-august philosophy, but it's not like it's a 20v 4AG with ITBs and all that. thoughts?

[Matt93SE]

What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

2010:

9.1.4.E. Engine
Alternate engines may be used, given that the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g. Acura engine installed into a Honda auto).

This states nothing about source of such engines. i.e. JDM, Euro, Aussie, etc is in play.

The chassis must be for a US-spec car, but the rule says nothing about the engine being US-only. Hellooooo JDM, Euro, Aussie engine swap.

2011:

9.1.4.G. Engine
1. Alternate engines may be used, if the manufacturer of the vehicle and engine are the same (e.g., an Acura engine
installed into a Honda car) and was available in a car delivered in North America. The chosen engine must retain its
original cylinder head and intake manifold. If an engine from a front wheel drive vehicle is installed in a rear wheel drive
vehicle, alternate OEM intake manifolds may be considered.

No more JDM, Euro, Aussie engines now.

Nissan's options for the 240SX chassis are pretty much shot in the foot unless you want to rev the bejeezus out of a truck engine and rebuild it every few races.
The other options are putting 600+ lb of ballast in the car to run a VQ or VG, or you can install an L/A series engine that was designed in the 60s.
Nissan simply didn't sell any decent small-displacement RWD engines in the states.

OR... for $2500 you could drop in an SR20DET that came in the car on all the other continents and reach STU's targeted power/weight ratio. reliably. And the SR20DE was in the 89-99ish Sentra & 200SX, but all in FWD layout and you can't use the FWD head in RWD configuration due to the layout of intake and location of cam pos sensor and distributor (all on the "back" of the engine over the tranny... which would put it inside the firewall in an RWD layout.)

But allowing non-US engines makes too much sense to me. We'd better not do that.

[Knestis]

These classes were derived from World Challenge. In World Challenge data collection and restrictions are used to regulate the cars. This is not a new idea nor should it be suprising to anyone.

Except Pro Racing only had to equalize among a very few driver/car combinations over the course of one season. You'll note they use reward weight, too. That's going to be very troublesome over the course of years with a class that's supposed to be - I hope - run to the same rules over time.

K

[Rabbit07]

Except Pro Racing only had to equalize among a very few driver/car combinations over the course of one season. You'll note they use reward weight, too. That's going to be very troublesome over the course of years with a class that's supposed to be - I hope - run to the same rules over time.

K

Agreed, but in the long run I suspect we will be only dealing with a handfull of combinations also. Maybe a few dozen. Remember we are only interested in making sure that not one mark runs away with it. The "Over" achievers.

We are working towards a rules set and a performance envelope that should stay the same for many years. Most of what we are working on is closing loop holes and the like. We need to slow the rules creep issues.

On the non us market engines I can tell you that the concensus from the rules makers is that it would be too difficult to police. One of our major intentions with the rules is to make them policable. There are some of us that would love to see them in the class, but not sure how to make it happen sensibly

On STL, how many of you really believe that with the current engine build rules that you could build a engine that makes more than around 100 hp crank per liter? The K20 would need to de-cam, as would the 2ZZ. Max valve lift in a 4 valve engine is .425. That means that if the stock cam is larger, guess what? You don't get to use it.

[23racer]

What part of the rules have changed other than the allowance for WC VTS sheets? None of the engine rules have change at all other than that.

I am really confused now. Does the STU class allow cars to run with their 2009 approved WC VTS or not for 2011. I was told that I couldn't run to my 2009 WC VTS and had to change my car to meet the basic STU class rules and after I was told this officially, I see all kinds of exceptions and rule changes for other cars.

By the way the WC VTS Sheets cover a lot more than just engine. Mine covers tire size, weight, gearbox, aero, etc....., plus the engine mods list which severely restrict allowable engine modifications (minimal head work), but does allow higher compression 12.5:1.

Things in STU seem to be soooo fluid and I don't understand the basic direction. I will wait and see what happens, but it seems like if I want to bring my car down to the U.S. to do a few races in 2011 I will need to look for alternative events. It is just such a change in the STU class from last year when I could run my car as it sat. Now I have to build new engines, add a bunch of weight, change the suspension, reduce my tire size and pull back the aero a bit (well I would have had to do that anyways as my car had a full belly pan and a 3" splitter). I should have done that race last year at Watkins Glen. Darn, the Western New York Comp Director who didn't return calls or e-mails, , but thats a whole other story..........

Eric

[Chip42]

On the non us market engines I can tell you that the concensus from the rules makers is that it would be too difficult to police. One of our major intentions with the rules is to make them policable. There are some of us that would love to see them in the class, but not sure how to make it happen sensibly

require a factory service manual. as many of these were sold in australia and the UK, they exist, in english. In large part, they are versions of motors sold in the US, so much is alread "verifiable" and much of what isn't is relatively open in the rules (cams and the like) - the big differences tend to be component orientation (manifolds, distributors, etc..) and design. rarer are the never-in the us motors like the RB nissans, but there is such an enthusiast following for those families of motors that I REFUSE to accept the supposeition that it would be hard to police. allow the motors on a per-request basis, and require appropriate documentation with that request or deny it. what's so hard there?

On STL, how many of you really believe that with the current engine build rules that you could build a engine that makes more than around 100 hp crank per liter? The K20 would need to de-cam, as would the 2ZZ. Max valve lift in a 4 valve engine is .425. That means that if the stock cam is larger, guess what? You don't get to use it.

if they would have to be de-cammed anyhow, why bar the B18C5 (teg tR) and F20C (S2k) hondas?

[Rabbit07]

I am really confused now. Does the STU class allow cars to run with their 2009 approved WC VTS or not for 2011. I was told that I couldn't run to my 2009 WC VTS and had to change my car to meet the basic STU class rules and after I was told this officially, I see all kinds of exceptions and rule changes for other cars.

By the way the WC VTS Sheets cover a lot more than just engine. Mine covers tire size, weight, gearbox, aero, etc....., plus the engine mods list which severely restrict allowable engine modifications (minimal head work), but does allow higher compression 12.5:1.

Things in STU seem to be soooo fluid and I don't understand the basic direction. I will wait and see what happens, but it seems like if I want to bring my car down to the U.S. to do a few races in 2011 I will need to look for alternative events. It is just such a change in the STU class from last year when I could run my car as it sat. Now I have to build new engines, add a bunch of weight, change the suspension, reduce my tire size and pull back the aero a bit (well I would have had to do that anyways as my car had a full belly pan and a 3" splitter). I should have done that race last year at Watkins Glen. Darn, the Western New York Comp Director who didn't return calls or e-mails, , but thats a whole other story..........

Eric

Look for Fastrack updates.

[23racer]

Thanks Chris, now I am all tingly again, . I will keep my eyes open and see what happens. I will also keep the car as it stands and wait to run it in its present state. I appreciate the difficulties in what you are doing with so many inputs from everybody. It has to be like the gopher game at the Fall Fair getting ready for the season.

If it ultimately doesn't fit, there is always HSR! I just want to race the car at Watkins Glen and Mid Ohio, LOL.

Good luck with the class philosophy, it seems pretty wild right now.

Eric

[Greg Amy]

Allow me to clarify my esteemed STAC member/peer's comments...

Given the discussion, I think I'm safe in stating the following. Note that is Greg's opinions/observation/inferences and are in NO WAY official/formal announcements of positions of the STAC and/or the CRB.

- STO is an explicitly-managed class, where we will take active measures to attempt to equalize "known" power-to-weight ratios on the (currently) limited number of allowed vehicles. "Known" will be determined by voluntary competitor revelations of measured output (such as it is) backed up by data analysis using SCCA-supplied Race Technology DL-1s. Race results will not result in a foregone conclusion of the need for adjustment, it will simply turn attention toward that car/driver combination for further scrutiny.

Given these cars are all pretty much supercars and super GTs, the assumption is that chassis in general are mostly equal in technology and capability. Thus, the focus will remain primarily on power-to-weight equalization. And, because the vast majority of cars above 3L are RWD, it will be a RWD-centric (-exclusive?) class.

- There is currently no discussions about active adjustments in STL. While of course we reserve the right to consider making minimal vehicle-specific allowances in the future to attempt to equalize engine performance (e.g., intake manifolds, alternate throttle bodies, etc) that is NOT being discussed - or even being considered - at this time. STL is a Regional-only class, and although we - I - want it to be National it is not a focus for adjustments.

My personal vision for the class is to go with the "here's the chart, pick your car", but I am *very* open to the idea of limited allowances for specific cars to try and get the horsepower numbers up to the "goal" or bogey level. Given I'm personally planning on running STL, I don't want to participate in a one-marque, one-car class.

Though - and this is most assuredly my own opinion - since the vast majority of cars 2L and below are FWD, it will likely result in STL being a FWD-centric (though not -exclusive) class.

- STU is the class that's giving us fits right now. SCCA's new policy of "rules changes in the calendar year being set" means the 2011 rules are set in stone through this calendar year, though as foreshadowed by a few others expect an announcement in the next Fastrack regarding inclusion of prior World Challenge VTS cars.

However, it is our goal to make as many cars competitive in the class as possible. This isn't as easy as it is with STO; STO is basically big-engines, high-tech chassis and suspension, mostly variations of the same theme. Given that, STO is an easy focus on the horsepower. In STU you have a wide range of types (FWD, RWD, AWD), suspension designs (struts, DWB, live axles), engines (I4, flat four, V6, turbo, normally-aspirated) and many variations on chassis. Right now the class focuses on horsepower, with some bones tossed to other technical features, but the problem resides in trying to make all these differences competitive; it's going to be a big chore. And, frankly, I personally don't want to spend every hour of every STAC meeting trying to actively manage every possible car, including some that we haven't even considered yet that may show up (remember, STO is limited to the listed cars; STO and STL are "open" with limited inclusions), and then finding out 6 weeks later when it's all approved we got it wrong. We don't have a quick-strike technical team like World Challenge has to take this tack, it would be Sisyphean to try. So I'm personally going to want a general ruleset that does its best to make as many cars competitive with a minimal number of exceptions and no active management.

We have not come to any conclusions on what to do for 2012 for STU; hell, we're just now discussing it. Many ideas are being tossed around, and I suspect we'll post a "what do you think" for Fastrack to get some more input. But for now, rest assured the future of STU is a big focus of our time, all while working in concert to develop a specific philosophy for this class, as well as the category as a whole.

I can move this, and other relevant, posts into a separate thread, or into the philosophy thread.

My two cents.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Good stuff Greg. Can you talk specifically about STL? And how the 'power number' appies to it - if at all. I may be mixing up Chris with my questions becuase when I ask about stuff, it's always about STL. STO and STU can be managed. I think what is interesting about STL to IT guys, is the classification methods.

Onto the 'who can build more than 100 crank hp per liter' question, it would seem that a it would be easy in the 1.8L GSR Honda and the 1.6 VTEC as well (already there in stock form 160hp).

If the intent is to bring THOSE cars back via some kind of adjustment, I haven't heard it explicitly yet. And I am not sure I like it but....

[Greg Amy]

Can you talk specifically about STL? And how the 'power number' appies to it - if at all.

I cannot. That, my friend, I will have to discuss with my esteemed colleague(s). I am inferentially aware of expected results, I'm not directly aware of stated goals. But again, I'm new to the STAC so given that there are no current discussions of active adjustments in STL I'm not too concerned about my ignorance...

If the intent is to bring THOSE cars back via some kind of adjustment, I haven't heard it explicitly yet. And I am not sure I like it but....

There is no active intent right now in STL. None. Not even being discussed. I'm not promising it won't come up in the future, of course, especially as the class is considered for National status, but it's not there now.

GA

[Rabbit07]

GA is much better at putting these kinds of things into print. I am going to shut my pie hole for now.......

[Knestis]

That was helpful. It would be a good idea to put together some boilerplate text describing the fundamental assumptions for each of the three classes, particularly since they are different. Like Andy (sounds like), I was overgeneralizing what I heard about one to the others. If there were a "one-pager" for each, that could be shared so everyone saw the same description, it would be massively helpful.

K

[Rabbit07]

That was helpful. It would be a good idea to put together some boilerplate text describing the fundamental assumptions for each of the three classes, particularly since they are different. Like Andy (sounds like), I was overgeneralizing what I heard about one to the others. If there were a "one-pager" for each, that could be shared so everyone saw the same description, it would be massively helpful.

K

That is exactly what the STAC has been working on recently

[lateapex911]

Allow me to clarify my esteemed STAC member/peer's comments...

There is currently no discussions about active adjustments in STL. While of course we reserve the right to consider making minimal vehicle-specific allowances in the future to attempt to equalize engine performance (e.g., intake manifolds, alternate throttle bodies, etc) that is NOT being discussed - or even being considered - at this time. STL is a Regional-only class, and although we - I - want it to be National it is not a focus for adjustments.

My personal vision for the class is to go with the "here's the chart, pick your car", but I am *very* open to the idea of limited allowances for specific cars to try and get the horsepower numbers up to the "goal" or bogey level. Given I'm personally planning on running STL, I don't want to participate in a one-marque, one-car class.

Though - and this is most assuredly my own opinion - since the vast majority of cars 2L and below are FWD, it will likely result in STL being a FWD-centric (though not -exclusive) class.



GA

Since the classing system is based on lbs per liter, it seems as though a more liberal allowance of alternate parts is in order, as the number of engines with the right combination of head, intake, throttle body, etc is rare. As you point out, competing in a one marque class isn't as fun as in a multi marque class....at least one where the rules aren't spec. As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Further, a more liberal allowances of intakes and the like would tend to propagate swaps and FWD engines in RWD cars, which, if I understand, is one of the cornerstones of the class.

As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

[CRallo]

Since the classing system is based on lbs per liter, it seems as though a more liberal allowance of alternate parts is in order, as the number of engines with the right combination of head, intake, throttle body, etc is rare. As you point out, competing in a one marque class isn't as fun as in a multi marque class....at least one where the rules aren't spec. As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Further, a more liberal allowances of intakes and the like would tend to propagate swaps and FWD engines in RWD cars, which, if I understand, is one of the cornerstones of the class.

As it stands, the rules that limit part changes are also limiting variety.

Jake says most of what's been on my mind about this ruleset... Engines from other countries should with out a doubt be allowed! I also believe that people should be allowed to play in their respective manufacturer's parts bins.

Jake says very well what I've been thinking...

I'm also in favor of allowing brake upgrades up to a specific set of parameters.

In addition to previously stated reasons, a lot of people do things like this when they build go fast and track cars. Then they come to the SCCA and can't find a place to fit in...

[Chip42]

100% agree with the 2 posts above. displacement + cam and CR limits = expected power. go to town. will probobly need some verbage to keep ITI / "motorcycle" throttles out (rare in automotive production applications, even in japan) or that all intake passes through a single inlet of max XXX in2. too limiting as is.

ditto STU. what's good for one is good for both in this case (with seperate but "equal" rules governing boost). I really appreciate the breakdown given by tGA and Chris above - I recognize the challenge that reining this thing in must be. again though - basic mechnaical limits on dispalcement, cam, compression, and inlet area for NA, some simple adders for driveline config, and let it shake itself out. personally, I'd let the VTS guys in as is + 150-200#. I don' tknow about boost, but the current stock engine + restrictor to weight seems like it has the ability to be tuned to the NA cars pretty easily (the means are simple,the data and confidence to make the decisions obviously less so).

greater alternate parts allowancse and international OE motors have to be considered lest the cream of the US market offerings will rise and the classes will become the one-make series feared.

on edit - I think I'd even be open to "strokers" and the like - again, displacement to weight,so why not?. displacement is easy enough to verify, and requiring stock components just makes tech's job harder while limiting viable options in class.

plus it lets me have my JDM 3rd gen 3SGE (which, BTW, would get CRUSHED under the current rules, even though it would be illegal...)

[Matt93SE]

personally, I'd let the VTS guys in as is + 150-200#.

although I agree with everything else you've said, I have to respectfully disagree here. The 1999 VTS for my car is "stock engine, euro cams, 225 width tires on 17x7 wheels, stock transmission." Yes, I can go either STU rules OR VTS, but compare my 10 year old VTS to what's out there now and OMFG- it's like IT vs. GT!
But yes.. for a class that was initially intended for ex-WC cars, they're sure doing a good job of killing that with removal of the VTS allowances.